Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17


Jean Paul Sartre’s:
Existentialism is Humanism

Critical Review

Michał Gomułka


“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through its wisdom, it

pleased God through the foolish preaching (cross) to save those who believe.”1 I have begun this

essay with this particular passage from the Bible because it shows me what is at stake; blindness.

No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. In this instance Sartre is blind

and he is unable to see the kingdom. Thus what the wisdom of God proclaims to be true he

cannot see. In this particular response to Jean-Paul Sartre‟s Existentialism is Humanism

apologetics and philosophy will be used in order to convey the point of the argument. One might

say that this is a critique of Sartre‟s work. In I Corinthians 1:21 Paul the Apostle indicates the

true wisdom and that is obviously Jesus Christ and Him crucified. To the Greek it is foolishness

and to the Jew it is a scandal. At the heart of the argument is that when God the Creator and

Sustainer of the universe is taken out, all else falls apart because there must be a first cause. Any

type of philosophy or ethical system based on humanism is faulty and must be exposed by the

light (Jesus) because what can be known about God has been displayed in the universe. Just as

atheists make a case that there is no God all Christians ought to make a case for them to prove

that there is no God. Actually Christians ought to expose the weakness of atheistic “ethics” such

as Darwinism and have them prove their theory which of course they cannot. Thus before

anybody asks us to prove the existence of God, one ought to ask, “prove that there is no God.”

This essay will be dual in nature because it will critique Sartre‟s Existentialism is Humanism on a

broad level and it will critique issues that I find crucial, more in depth than others. Thus I have

already assumed after reading Sartre‟s essay what the major and the minors are; in a nutshell the

above is the basic outline of this essay.

I Corinthians 1:21, reference added.

“My purpose here is to offer a defense of existentialism.”2 Sartre begins his work as a

defense of Existentialism. It will be helpful to give a definition of what Existentialism is

according to Sartre.

“Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does
not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it
can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality.” 3

Upon being given the definition above one can make two major assumptions. First, there is no

God and second, existence precedes essence. I am fond of this sort of “doctrine” because it

shows me how depraved human beings really are. What I mean by this is simple, man is at the

center of life, man is sitting on the throne and God is not! Now, this can go even further as to

“how” Sartre defines Existentialism. Existence precedes essence. He is already assuming that

anything that “begins” to exist starts to “form or develop” an identity, particularly human beings.

It is already a “given” to Sartre because he knows he was born at a certain point in time, and he

knows that he begun to exist, yet his essence is not included there, it follows later. This is what

he means by “existence precedes essence: “We mean that man first of all exists, encounters

himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.”4 Thus, according to Sartre,

man is the product of his or her own choices!

He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no
human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply
what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already
existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he
makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. 5

Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism

Again, I am not surprised at all that Sartre has titled his essay Existentialism is Humanism.

What even surprises me is that as a Christian myself I totally agree with that statement;

Existentialism is humanism! It really is! Whenever man is at the center and everything depends

on his actions and on what he chooses to do ignoring God it comes down to one simple principle;

humanism. This is man-centered mentality verses the God-centered mentality. Why did I say it

like that? Basically because there exist only two worldviews or two religions; Christianity and

everything else. One might say what a broad canon you have used to make this assumption!

Don‟t you know about Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Wiccans, Roman Catholics, Baptists,

Kabala? Frankly I am familiar with all of them and what separates Christianity6 from all else is

not based on some ethical or religious standard but on a person, Jesus Christ! Jesus is the Gospel;

He is our righteousness, wisdom, sanctification and redemption.7 Thus the Christian worldview

before all else is Christological. This is where the rubber meets the road. Sartre by no means

showed us anything new. It is only this old lie whispered in the garden to Adam and Eve; “You

shall be like God.” Surely it puts on new “image” very intellectual what harm could it do? People

like Sartre one might say are highly educated; this is a man with wit and virtue! Yet what kind

of wit and virtue does it present? In the rest of the essay I will not be focusing if Sartre is right by

saying that Existentialism is Humanism because I have already established that point; it is! Sartre

is totally correct by saying that. All I want to present from now on is the horrific lie of this

“philosophy/ethics” which is destructive to mankind as a whole.

Humanism has not always been the enemy of Christianity. Actually during the Renaissance

of the 15th century thanks to Humanism people like Erasmus put the Greek New Testament

By Christianity I mean what the Old and the New Testament hold together as a unit, in essence faith in Jesus Christ
apart from works by grace through faith alone.
I Corinthians 1:31

together and others translated it into the “vulgar” language of the people. “Erasmus laid the egg

which Luther hatched.” Yet with time humanism took on a different spin of separating itself

from the “ecclesial environment” because it was no more popular to have God in the equation.

Sartre definitely was an atheist; a good atheist. Before I expend on this let me mention that Sartre

has been widely affected by Kant and his “categorical imperative.”

For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which
propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a
subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Before that projection of the
self nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what
he purposes to be. Not, however, what he may wish to be. For what we usually understand by wishing or
willing is a conscious decision taken – much more often than not – after we have made ourselves what we
are. I may wish to join a party, to write a book or to marry – but in such a case what is usually called my
will is probably a manifestation of a prior and more spontaneous decision. If, however, it is true that
existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, the first effect of existentialism is
that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his
existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do
not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men. 8

Here we have the Kantenian idea that man is responsible for himself and others! Man is

responsible for his actions as well as all men. At first glance anybody who has not read the Bible

cover to cover would say, “What a great Christian, Mr. Sartre is a good person!” Obviously the

person who would make that statement above is not able to smell the rat of humanism in this

statement. What is good? How does one define what is good? Going back to the example of the

good atheist long time ago I heard this example, I do not know from where it was taken but it is

not mine I just want to make that clear. Well, the example went like this: There was this good

atheist and he had a friend who was sick but they lived 50 miles apart from each other. It was a

very cold winter night and the good atheist decided to bring the medicine to his dying friend. The

medicine was the only way to save this person. The good atheist makes the trip and finally

delivers the cure to his friend and saves his life. What has he done? Again, someone not familiar

Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism

with the God of the Bible will right away say, “A good deed indeed!” Yet if a Christian looks at

this from a Biblical worldview he will indeed say, “This man has sinned!” “Well how did he sin,

he just saved that man‟s life!” The punch line is that the good atheist has not given glory to God

who alone is good and his motive was for vindication of self, “look at me what a good person I

am!” That is sin! That is taking away the glory that is due only to God! Humanism has a

tendency to dress in white yet underneath is filled with dung, puss and ashes. No wonder some

people consider Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Christians because they are “good people.”

Christianity above all else is Christ-centered; Christological. Buddhism minus Buddha still

equals Buddhism. Existentialism minus Sartre still equals Existentialism. Christianity minus

Jesus does not equal Christianity! Thus Mr. Sartre will die one day yet even without him

Existentialism will function because it is a system of ideas that is not subjective to anything else,

it does not depend upon anything or anyone, it just is!

Being a good person and carrying for others is essential to Sartre yet if only in this life we

have hope according to Apostle Paul we are the most wretched of all men! Sartre said that “man

is before all else” yet how could that be? I see no purpose in arguing over the fact that the earth

is older than any other human being, yet all must have a beginning, of course this would exclude

the first necessary cause which must be God! What scares me about Existentialism is that it is so

immoral! Now Sartre would argue with me that it is not but I would like to present an example

from life: Imagine a society where more young people are moving in and are adding socially and

economically into the benefit of the city. Yet there exists a large community in that city that is

made up of older people who really are not adding anything to the society. They just “use” the

resources; they are “vegetating” on the resources of others. Now an existentialist might see it as

his duty to add to the “common good” of the city overall. As having this “ability to make

choices” he might see it as his duty to remove the old people with the use of euthanasia in order

that they might not consume the goods of the community. Obviously this is not an example but

something that has originated in Holland and is spreading all over the world, for the sake of the

argument lets just call it “silent holocaust.” Sartre is so unaware of the danger that his

Existentialism presents to the society. On the other hand what would a Christian do? Obviously

not what the Existentialist did, murder is a sin, and it is inhumane! In an Existentialist worldview

one dictates his own standards and morals. Morality is so seared that what seems best for “me” is

chosen as a priority. Adolf Hitler for instance was “building a better society” in his mind by

exterminating people whom he thought to be inferior to his “uber-man” race. Wasn‟t he an

Existentialist? In his mind he was doing a favor to the society by killing others. He was “defining

men” by his standard. Thus If I was born in Germany during world war two I would be

considered a “defect” because I was born only with one properly working eye, my left leg is

shorter than my right and I had a weak heart. Yet what defines man? If there is no absolute

standard than there is no hope because all will do what seems “best” or “worst” in their own


Going back to the saying: “Existence precedes essence,” man basically becomes what he

chooses to become. We are shaped by our culture and circumstances. Man has no destiny; there

is no prior essence because according to Sartre one must first exist and discover his or her

essence/purpose. It seems strange for something to exist with no prior essence. One makes a car

in order to drive that car. A table is made for a general purpose and so is a chair. We make food

so that we can eat it (cooking). Yet here is this extremely intelligent being that comes into

existence with no prior purpose; man. For Sartre there is no God so all of us are a coincidence an

accident of natural causes! We come into this world and we become what we are by choosing.

Everything in the universe has a prior function yet not man Sartre would say. We become by

what we choose to become. I could not be able to live with this “doctrine.” It is correct to say

that our choices have an impact on reality yet the “essence of man” is defined even before their

existence. Coming from a Christian perspective man is made for the glory of God, primarily

above all else to worship God.9 Thus, even before man existed God‟s Word already told us our

purpose. In a Christian worldview there is a Creator and a creature relationship. In the moment a

baby is born into this world he or she already has an ultimate essence or purpose; to worship

God. I do not make a hammer and then decide what I will use it for. Hammer is made for nailing

nails. I personally believe that Sartre is not aware of the problems that his view presents. There

must be a primary purpose for everything because everything in the universe has a purpose!

Now, yes man becomes what he is by his choices meaning that by those choices that I make I

will either become a policeman if I go to a police academy or a doctor if I go to the medical

school. These are secondary issues. What is at stake is the primary essential purpose of man! All

birds that fly have wings but not all birds are predators. There is a parrot and a hawk. Again not

all men are doctors but all men are created to worship God. Sartre misses it all together because

he is an atheist. Existence must be specified for a particular purpose otherwise it is not existence

but rather nothingness. A tiger doesn‟t wake up one night and says, “I think I‟m going to try

eating grass and become a lamb.” A man does not wake up one morning and says, “I‟m going to

jump off the cliff and try to fly and see if my hands will turn into wings.” Obviously this is

ludicrous! Let me try this proof: a. everything that begins to exist already has a pre-existent

essence (purpose) b. man begun to exist c. man has a pre-existent essence. I cannot tolerate the

fact that we as human beings come into this world as an empty slate. At the level that Sartre is

presenting his argument, it is true in a sense that our choices “shape us” yet the primary essence
Isaiah 43:7

is already assumed; that is to worship God! I am convinced that C.S Lewis‟ first five chapters of

Mere Christianity is a deadly rebuttal to Mr. Sartre‟s Existentialism is Humanism. Even though

Sartre does say that morality is assumed by all men (on which I will expend later on in the paper)

he makes a contradiction by already assuming that some “unit in men” already has essence prior

to its existence. Morality is not a product of evolution or something that is learned. Morality

assumes what is expected from the other person and is sure to accuse the other if the “pre-

existent” expectations are not met. There exists this standard in human beings that is used as a

measuring rod to decide what is good and what is bad. It cannot be learned because it already

exists at conception. People in Poland and people in America all are aware of the fact that

murder and stealing is wrong. I do not have to teach someone that murder is wrong, they already

know it. This “natural law of man” is present at the point of one‟s existence thus “essence of

morality” cannot be “developed or formed” it already exists. There is a “standard” that all men

are aware of yet they do not keep it at all times. Thus I believe Lewis would argue that at least

“essence of morality” is already present at existence and cannot be formed or developed by our

choices because it just is. Since morality is present in human beings and is not learned or

developed one can logically assume that it had to be “given” or “passed on” to us by some “other

source” than human beings. In Christianity we know it is God who gave it to us but even in the

world of science one can argue and ask “from where does this pre-existent morality with which

we are born comes from.” One can even argue with atheists about a single cell which is so

complex that it would take long time to explain its function. If the cell is the product of evolution

from where does it get its “commands” which are already there? The power house of the cell,

mitochondria is so complex that to say that the cell “evolved” is just scientifically absurd! One

can say it is “science-fiction.” Thus even the single cell already possesses “commands” that pre-

existed before it “evolved” according to science. So where does it come from, these commands?

Again, it is easier to say that there is an intelligent creator such as God than to say that it just

happened. The Bible is very wise to say, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”10

Next on the list “to do” is this scary statement that we are unable to choose the worse.

Again Sartre is taking about the “benefit of all” and this “duty” yet these are mere words which

cannot back up the reality of Existentialism which is selfishness and pride.

For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not
one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose
between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to
choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for
all. If, moreover, existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image,
that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is thus much
greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I am a worker, for instance, I may
choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to
signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes a man, that man‟s kingdom is not upon this
earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in
consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry
and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my
desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am
thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to
be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.11

What a scary yet true statement! I want to focus on what I have underlined. If a young

woman who is an Existentialist decides to commit abortion because she is a teenager, does not

have enough money and doesn‟t want to offend her parents especially her dad who is a preacher,

is in a sense doing exactly what Sartre says, she is looking for the common good of others and

not just herself. Yet in committing abortion according to Sartre she is defining every other young

woman who is in her situation. After World War II people hated Germans not distinguishing

between those who were Nazis and those who did not participate in the Holocaust. In a sense

men are “stereotyped” by other men. Sartre was right by saying that man defines other man yet

the primary purpose of man has been defined by their Creator from all eternity and that is to
Psalm 53:1
Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism

worship Him! “For we are unable to ever choose the worse” This is taken from the large

paragraph that I just quoted above. This is extremely interesting to me, how do I know what is

best? How do I define what is best? “Sartre! You just said that man makes his choices and he

does what he wants so you mean to tell us that any choice that man makes is not worse but

always better?” Again the factor “best” has not been defined thus man invents what “best” is

according to what he or she believes “the best” is. Humanism is just saturated in Existentialism!

Sartre has titled his essay very properly. One man might choose to save a drowning baby and

consider that the best choice and another man might commit adultery because it seemed as the

best choice. Without defining what is good and what is best we are destined to anarchy! One

might say, “You are insane anarchy? How?” Well, if men do what seems best to their own

convictions then we define the good, the better and the best. The “worse” to an existentialist will

always be that from which he cannot profit! Bible says that God alone is good, in Him is fullness

of joy and pleasures forevermore!”12 In “creating the image of man” as Sartre said man do by

their choices one will wake up one day look in the mirror and see a monster; total emptiness.

What is so sad about existentialism is that “it just is.” “Do it for the sake of duty, make your

choices so you can feel good about yourself and die as a piece of dirt in the ground because that

is all you are anyway!” Existentialism presents radical Humanism at its core! Sartre is just

scratching the surface, but what really is hiding underneath Existentialism is pride of man and

hatred against God! Sartre would never say it like that because he is a good atheist, yet the devil

wants you to know that he is red, has a pitchfork in his hand and is just so scary. Devil wants you

to know that witches, goblins are his cohorts and that he is this scary monster! C.S Lewis has

presented this extremely fashionably in one of his books which is my favorite, The Screwtape

Letters. Devil wants you to know that he is either this ugly red monster with a pitchfork in his
Psalm 16:11

hand or that he does not exist at all! Why do we then marvel that Existentialism is “Satanic” at

its core because it is dressed in white! Paul the Apostle was correct when he said in II

Corinthians 11:14, “even Satan disguises himself as the angel of light.” Sartre in essence is

saying that men are creating the image of other man. Genesis 1:26-27 says that we were made

(created) in the image of God! Man has a defined image that was assumed before his existence;

the image of God. Yet the devil being “the father of lies” and he has been lying since the

beginning and there is no truth in him is deceiving the “cosmos”13 by putting on a suite and

waving some degree in philosophy from a secular university. One cannot see this because it is so

clever! Who would imagine that the devil has some of his best soldiers in schools, religious

organizations and politics! Yet Existentialism will remain Humanism; God hating.

In order to be fair and do justice to Sartre I want to expend on Existentialism and

morality at a general level. “The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular

moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense.”14 Wow! This sounds so

“politically correct!” Why would Sartre say this? He wants to say that because he wants people

to view Existentialism as an ethical system that does not include God in the equation yet at the

same time is not antagonistic as some other atheists such as Satanists. A very crafty device the

devil has used. Existentialism does not have to suppress God and be „God-hating” as the

Satanists are but it has already accomplished its job by putting the man on the throne and giving

God no place to sit. The moment we say that God does not exist it does not matter if we try to

say that “it‟s okay for Christians to meet on Sunday and worship, let them have their fun as long

as they are not radical and are not terrorizing the rest of the society with this creature of theirs;

Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism

God.” It does not matter because this is really what atheists think of Christians, “In fact let them

worship but keep quite we do not need to feel terrorized let‟s just have love, ah yes! Love is all

we need. This God of Old Testament is so blood thirsty masochistic child abusing father that we

do not need him, love is all we need.”15

However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain values
should be taken seriously; they must have an a priori existence ascribed to them. It must be considered
obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat one‟s wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are
going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that these values exist all the same,
inscribed in an intelligible heaven although, of course, there is no God. In other words – and this is, I believe,
the purport of all that we in France call radicalism – nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall
rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-
of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself. The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely
embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an
intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect
consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie,
since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: “If God did not exist,
everything would be permitted”; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed
permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend
upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed
existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one‟s action by reference to a given and specific
human nature; in other words, there is no determinism – man is free, man is freedom.16

Sartre will not deny the necessity of a “moral society” yet he makes it very clear that this

society most definitely can exist without God. In the paragraph above I have underlined the first

sentence which I believe to be the “Achilles‟ heel” of the argument that Sartre makes; mainly

that existence precedes essence. This French man assumes that moral values such as to be

honest, not to beat one‟s wife and to bring up children must have a “prior existence?” I smell a

contradiction! Mr. Sartre so you would agree that man before coming into this world already

knows what is right and what is not? He would not say it like that but he cannot deny it. Whether

realizing this weakness in the argument or not Sartre is addressing what we Christians call

morality or conscience with which we are born, it is a given! Well, Mr. Sartre from where did

this pre-existing, prior ability to know what is morally right and wrong has come from? Well

John Lennon and Richard Dockins, paraphrased by the author
Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism

again Sartre can voucher for those Existentialists who are theists and say what I have underlined

in the second part of the paragraph that I quoted from Existentialism is Humanism, mainly that

Existentialists are embarrassed that God does not exists. A clever strategy Mr. Sartre yet you say

that you belong to those Existentialists that are atheists! One cannot deny that prior ability to

make choices had to arrive with the design. All men have morality; as C.S Lewis said, they either

accuse or rationalize. This level of „what is expected” exists in all men. It is in all man, not an

instinct, it is transcendental and trans-chronological and it is not learned. People all over the

world know that murder and stealing is wrong! This “morality” can be seared in some but

according to Lewis the society considers people like that sociopaths. Sartre is so unaware of the

weakness of his argument because morality pre-exists, thus one cannot learn that stealing is

wrong, they just know it. God must be present at the equation, it just has to be, it is so logical!

„Yes Mr. Sartre I know, you are asking me to prove that God exists or better show me God! Mr.

Sartre have you ever loved?‟ Most likely he has, I am assuming. Well can you show me love?

Sure he will say, „I have bought flowers for this woman, I have married her and I am faithful to

her, we kiss each other and hold hands, this is love!‟ „No Mr. Sartre I have not asked you to

show me the means by which you love but show me “the love!” You cannot!‟ „Well I pray to

God I mean we talk a lot, I read my Bible because that is how I know about God and I try to love

others as myself because God requires that of us. I mean just look at me I was made by God!‟

This little analogy might be ridiculous but it shows that not always what we think is so simple or

common to all man like love could not be shown in its purest form because it cannot be. I can say

that God exists by showing the means by which I know he does exist. I think it takes a lot of

“faith”17 to be an atheist; I just could not do it.

Faith in the fact to be so sure that there is no God 100% sure to say that there is no God and prove that there is no

“In the end, it is feeling that counts; the direction in which it is really pushing me is the

one I ought to choose.”18 Okay, I have a big problem with this one! What if an Existentialist feels

it is proper to kill other people for the good of the society? Sartre is probably screaming from the

grave, “Show me one!” Well, Hitler. Wasn‟t he an Existentialist? He chose to make one master

race for the benefit of the German nation by exterminating peoples groups such as Jews and

Gypsies. Personally I believe that Hitler is just one of the many antichrists that will come before

the actual Antichrist comes into the scene. Feelings hang on a swing! One day they go to the left

and the other day to the right. There is no standard, yet there must exist a moral code, a given!

Again it is impossible because Sartre took God out of the equation. Another statement made by

Sartre that I want to expend on is this, “You are free, therefore choose, that is to say, invent.”19

By inventing I can see only one catastrophe; sin. Let me say what I mean by that. In Romans

1:30 Paul is listing the sins of the nations and one of them is that they are “inventors of evil.” By

choosing what you “feel” is right without being subjected to God, judgment and life after death

there remains only one result and that is new manifestations of sin by human kind. There is just

so much sin out there! People really do invent “new ways of sinning.” By this freedom to choose

and invent Sartre is really giving ammunition to those who will take his “philosophy” and just

run wild with it!

Every theory which begins with man, outside of this moment of self-attainment, is a theory which thereby
suppresses the truth, for outside of the Cartesian cogito, all objects are no more than probable, and any
doctrine of probabilities which is not attached to a truth will crumble into nothing. In order to define the
probable one must possess the true. Before there can be any truth whatever, then, there must be an absolute
truth, and there is such a truth which is simple, easily attained and within the reach of everybody; it consists
in one‟s immediate sense of one‟s self. 20

God. This faith I do not have to say there is no God.

Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism

Thus Sartre believes in something called “an absolute truth” and that is immediate sense

of one‟s self. Thus “I know therefore I am.” To Sartre the truest reality is the “knowledge of self

existence.” On a certain level I agree with him since we can know that we exist and him being an

atheist it would make even more sense because there is no God. Yet what constitutes an absolute

truth? Men change and are not stable, God is immutable He cannot change! If we want an

absolute truth it has to be true all the time! Only God meets that requirement.

“In one sense choice is possible, but what is not possible is not to choose. I can always

choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a choice.”21 I have found this

statement very interesting. I have never thought of the fact that when I chose not to do something

the act of not choosing in itself is a choice. I am just quoting it because I like it. It is very logical

to me.

What man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even
a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it
is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without

Paragraph above is the way Sartre ends his essay, Existentialism is Humanism. Wow!

What Sartre is assuming is that belief in God causes this fear not to act and be passive! Man must

climb the hill, the show must go on! He is so right, Existentialists are indeed without hope! This

Stoic mentality will take them to the grave and then straight to the judgment seat from where

there is no partiality and all have fallen short of God‟s glory! Existentialism is indeed Humanism

and it is a philosophy of the devil himself where man is god and there is no God.


In conclusion, a lie from the Garden of Eden in the ages past has taken many forms but

this time it is called Existentialism. There is nothing new under the sun and Existentialism is not

new either. It is already a defeat for Sartre to say that morality exists before essence because that

means that “someone or something” had to put it there in the first place; obviously God. This

“natural human law” just screams at all humanity, “There is a God!” Existentialism is destructive

and takes away the glory from God. Just as Paul the Apostle said that man in their own wisdom

did not come to know God because God is revealed only in Jesus Christ who is the exact

representation of the Father. Sartre is gone, Buddha is gone, Mohamed is gone, Kant is gone,

Hume is gone, Hitler is gone yet God as He always existed from all eternity is here and will be

here because He has no beginning nor end, this is absolute truth, a truth that remains forever.

Jesus rose from the dead and so will those who trust in Him. Sartre is still in the grave; Jesus is

risen from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father…hmm? I am going with Jesus!